etc...you get the idea. either someone trains in another Art and gains groundfighting skill then later credits/claims it's source as unlocking the secrets of Karate training....this is to suggest they are closer to karate's original intent - ie 'more effective'. coupled with that, historical rabbits are pulled out of contemporary hats.

again, there isn't any shame in giving credit where it's due. people become skilled at ground fighting not by extracting principles from kata, but from studying Arts that specifically have groundfighting as part of their main curriculum and don't keep it a secret.

While most of this discussion hasn't been of much interest to me in the last day it has suggested Okinawan Sumo was related to ground fighting.

At least the Okinawan Sumo I've seen on OkinawaBBTV.com doesn't seem to resemble that argument. On a large circle of sand about 6" thick, two contestents grab each other's obi (or whatever it is they wear) and when they begin they try and wrestle the other to touch the ground and if doing so the match is over.

In that contest it is a form of grappling, and not disimiliar to other grappling arts around the world. I've seen similar Celtic arts demonstrated.

On the whole it looks fun and if I was younger I think I'd enjoy giving it a go.

But unless there are other aspects I haven't seen I have a hard time trying to unbalanced and drop someone as being a form of ground fighting.

Isshinryu's variation of Kyan's Kata include techniques were you end on the ground and stike from there, and that is a form of ground fighting. It also contains several obvious throws and an entire range of grappling techniques such as limitless armbars, etc. in the kata. My instructors art also covers kicking while grounded, and was my first Isshinryu kicking lessons 35 years ago.

But I don't believe the argument that the purpose of karate is for fighting. I see anyone making that point, Okinawan or whomever as missing the clear lesson of kata's techniques, They're really not designed for fighting but for ending a situation.

When kata technique can be used to hyper-extend the elbow of an arm launched in your direction, to the point of breaking it, if you train to the appropriate level of execution. When a kata technique can be used to dislocate ankles and legs, to the point of breaking too, when hand techniques that look like strikes can wrench necks to the extreme level, it's such techniques that end a situation.

Of course in Isshinryu we study our own kobudo along with our empty hand. It is quite reasonable to assume our use of sai is to counter extreme fighting threats. It's faldarol to believe they were designed to fight weapons, but interesting to see how grappling works agianst sai.

Then again I'm Isshinryu prejudiced on days when I'm not other art prejudiced.

The karate arts are neutral they just are. How they're extended into usage depends on training, imagination and skill acquisition. If you limit a system by saying we don't do so and so, then you don't, but it hardly defines what others may do.

You know, even as older and decrepit I'm becoming I think I might enjoy entering the ring against anyone with MMW versus my karate sai tradition....... hmmm

Point 1: I have been finding groundfighting techniques in Matsubayashi-Ryu since before 1990. Having trained in Silat and Kali, I began seeing the same techniques in my Karate kata. In fact, one of the moves the Goju guy did on the Human Weapon episode was a silat takedown I learned almost two decades ago.

Point 2: What was introduced to the U.S. as Matsubayashi was not very advanced. Jim Wax, who I know and was my father's first teacher, had only a few years of training before he returned to the U.S. as a shodan.

Frank Grant had several trips to Okinawa to train with Nagamine, but all of his time with the Master combined only equals a year or 2 maximum training directly with the master. He is a knowledgeable man and a great karateka, but a master?

Ansei was sent over to the U.S. as a sandan with only 11 years of training with Nagamine. Within 3 years, he had made himself a 7th and was his own master which is a completely different discussion. My point is that he was in no way a master of Matsubayashi-Ryu. He was a lot better than most people in the U.S. had seen, but still not a master.

I find grappling techniques in kata all of the time. I don't teach them early on in a student's training because I prefer the beginner learn how to defend themself without getting tied up with one person. When skills develop, grappling can be used to an advantage against one or multiple attackers.

and a good discussion it is eh, my stance on it - there is very little prolonged groundwork, if any in the classical karate systems.

sure there are takedowns, locks, pins, strangles all shown in the classical kata but little/no ground grappling.

yes many of the standup techniques can be used when on the ground, but thats not really the point here.

the tegumi tradition also has very little groundwork, it is standup grappling for position to finish things either on ones feet, or to take the other person down, either for a lock/control or strike finish.

Certainly the kata are designed to show us vital point strikes or nasty breaks that end things, for self defence, as opposed to a match or prolonged anything.

What sealed this for me is the real lack of any evidence of Okinawan masters of old working groundwork as done in BJJ etc etc, where are the pictures - plenty of standup but little/no groundwork per say,

and whilst it has been said before the reality of keeping ones mobility in real self defense training really is significant.

Just my thoughts of course, but the evidence strongly suggests that karate of old didn't like going to ground, and I don't see that as a weakness considering the arts origional intent.

Quote:What sealed this for me is the real lack of any evidence of Okinawan masters of old working groundwork as done in BJJ etc etc, where are the pictures - plenty of standup but little/no groundwork per say,

and whilst it has been said before the reality of keeping ones mobility in real self defense training really is significant.

Just my thoughts of course, but the evidence strongly suggests that karate of old didn't like going to ground, and I don't see that as a weakness considering the arts origional intent.

My point exactly. It's no big deal to say that it wasn't in there - by most accounts, it was DESIGNED that way. Why people want to insist that substantial groundfighting is in there is beyond me.

Again, a huge difference between saying that 'I found similarities' to 'It was already there'.

Ed makes a good analogy with grapplers 'finding' striking applications in grappling drills. How ridiculous would it seem if I said that 'wall walking' was actually a spinning back kick or 'shrimping' was a double heel palm strike to the opponent's chest? I mean, you could turn those drills 90 degrees and have them made into stand-up......I guess. Perhaps when shadowboxing, the hook punch is really a RNC! A bob/uppercut is a high crotch!

And I'm not saying that those things won't work. In all seriousness, I am impressed that people are able to link those things together like that. It's just that they were not really intended to be used that way from the beginning. And to imply it that way - and scorn others for failing to see it - is just pointless.

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Sho, I think one problem with your assertions is that BJJ is not the only way to fight on the ground. BJJ guys for the most part pull guard and like to fight off their back. That is definately not the strategy in the ground work of karate nor is it my mentality. If you are taken down the point is to get back to your feet. If you catch a joint lock or a striking opportunity while getting up, great, but you are always aggressively trying to get back to your feet. How can you have a "self defense" art that lacks these techniques and strategies? On top it is also about finishing your opponent. I don't think anyone here said anything about prolonged ground work. Really the length of time you spend on the ground depends upon your own skill level to regain your feet. I guess there are many people on this forum whose karate contains no technique to regain a standing position once it is lost. I guess I can also assume that their art also lacks strikes/joint locks if you find yourself in the top position after a throw or a takedown. Its not always that easy to just stand up from the top mounted position. Strikes/joint locks can assist with this as well as finishing the fight by the time you regain your feet. Am I wrong, or did someone mention prolonged groundwork as a fighting strategy?